Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "George G. Dishman"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:09 PM
Subject: Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation


George I snipped the details of your argument because they are
too vague

Too vague? I gave you the web site where you could
find the DSN documents, the documents numbers, the
page and figure, table or paragraph references for
everything. I will explain anything you don't
follow but I expect you to make put some into
understanding the system. Did you read them?

1) Resonance tuning of some form is going on

Not according to the DSN publications.

and if you can explain
how it goes on and show you understand the basic physics

I understand resonance just fine, but since it
is not used, I don't see any point in discussing
it. The system uses a broadband flat spectrum
amplifier with digital filtering.

snip
2)The point which you have to admit unless you want me to think you
are not as honest as you claim to be, is that the tuning method here
filters out frequencies that are not nearly equal to the predicted
frequency

I am simply restating what is in the DSN documents.
If I wanted to be dishonest, I would not have given
you the location where you could check for yourself.

The method applies a sophisticated digital filter,
not a crude tuned circuit, to get rid of frequencies
that are too far from the expected value as I have
admitted before, but if you read the documents you
will find that 'too far' is still wide enough to
lock on to the signal even if you were right.

and the existence of some records you claim exist which are
further than than others from the predicted frequency does not
alter
this general point.

Agreed. What they tell you is that there was no
_further_ filtering afterwards, the phase counter
results were all written to the tapes.

Thus the method of obtaining the received
frequencies
guarantees that the ones received are consistent with the speed
of light
delay assumptions.

No, it guarantees the signal will be found if it
is within a few kHz of the the predicted values,
but once found it also means there is no further
selection since the PLL tracks the actual signal
regardless of frequency (up to some maximum rate
of change of course). It is only once the signal
has been found that the very narrow filter is
applied.

3) Please answer the issues raised below.
Ralph

What you copied below was mainly in response to
Craig's post but I will snip and answer where it
is relevant to me.

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
Dont you understand that if you are excluding outlier
frequencies from
a previously filtered set of frequencies which
includes only those frequencies that were received after tuning
to the
predicted frequency

The system is not tuned to the predicted frequency:

a) It is not tuned at all, it is amplified then filtered.

b) The prediction is used only to narrow the search.

c) Once the signal has been found the filtering is
symmetrical about the actual frequency regardless
of the prediction.

[To Craig]
No your assumption and understanding of a basic fact of
radio communications
is erroneous. Resonance is always involved. ....

Wrong, read the DSN documents for specific details
and follow the links I gave to satellite TV LNAs
to get an introduction to the concept, the DSN stuff
assumes you know how basic principles work.

The rest relates to Craig's comments, not mine.

George

George Dishman wrote:

The frame that is called "the fixed stars" is technically
called The International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

For precisely the reason you give, it is based on the
locations of 608 _extragalactic_ radio sources. What
seems to have passed you by is that "the fixed stars"
refers exclusively to objects far outside the Milky Way.

Cool! I could see that something like that was needed, but
I didn't know it had been set up. How did you learn of it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

(Jeff Root) wrote in message . com...
George Dishman wrote:

The frame that is called "the fixed stars" is technically
called The International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

For precisely the reason you give, it is based on the
locations of 608 _extragalactic_ radio sources. What
seems to have passed you by is that "the fixed stars"
refers exclusively to objects far outside the Milky Way.

Cool! I could see that something like that was needed, but
I didn't know it had been set up. How did you learn of it?

I don't know to be honest. I've been aware of it for
some time probably just through posts in this group
or maybe following up on papers that have been cited.
Anderson's uses it for analysis of Pioneer 10:

"Our analyses used the standard space-fixed J2000
coordinate system, which is provided by the
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
This is a quasi-inertial reference frame defined
from the radio positions of 212 extragalactic
sources distributed over the entire sky [56]."

the number of 212 as opposed to the 608 quoted above
I believe reflects the status of various sources.

The JPL Horizons system I have been using with Ralph
uses DE405 for its planetary ephemeris and DE405 is
stated in the ICRF too.

George

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message om...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

It is striking that none of you make allowances for doppler data
arriving from objects within the galaxy and objects arriving from a
different galaxy

The subject of this thread is specifically the
use of Pioneer telemetry measurements as a test
of Ralph's theory. RF from other objects does
not relate to that other than as a possible
source of noise.

Good to see you George.

Hi Gerald,

Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and with
present models you can't make them fit.

Since they different supernovae in different
galaxies presumably at different distances,
we may see them simultaneously but they did
not happen simultaneously.

This is correct,assuming that the local stars of our Milky Way rotated
a certain degree differently for each

It is correct regardless of any motion of the local
stars. The light from events that are further away
took longer to get here, therefore the events must
have happened earlier in the history of the
universe for us to see them now.


The information you provide is incomplete insofar as you did not take
into account the changing orientation of the parent galaxy to a local
reference star,the change is due to the rotation of the local star
around the galactic axis.We recognise diurnal rotation (1st rotation)
by circumpolar motion of celestial bodies,we recognise annual
elliptical rotation(2nd rotation) by a variation in the motion of the
stars over the course of an annual orbit,now the unaswered question
and this is rhetorical as far as I am concerned,how do you recognise
the 3rd rotation using supernova as markers of their parent galaxies
?.



therefore you may wish to have a
look at geometrical difference between actual individual supernova
occurence and simultaneous observance and how to align this with
constant rotation of the local reference stars.

I assumed when you said "two supernovae observed
occuring simultaneously in two different galaxies"
that neither of them was within the Milky Way. Nor
did you mention any "local reference stars" in your
question.


Yes George,two different supernova occuring in two different galaxies
removed from the local stars of the Milky Way,one of these supernova
at 2 million years light distance and one at 3 million years light
distance.Using the rotation of the local stars as a reference,it is
plainly and clearly proposed that the positional displacement of the
supernovae as representative of their parent galaxies is the only way
to determine that the local stars are rotating around the galactic
axis .As you see, all this is set forward to justify the inclusion of
the 3rd rotation,i.e stellar rotation around the galactic axis however
that is not the end of the story and regretably this is where you get
to keep your elite status as an astronomer for it becomes rapidly
complex.

Because you associate light distance with time,it is clear that the
supernova events at 2 million and 3 million light years also reflect
the rotation of the local stars against these individual galaxies and
the location in the cosmos these galaxies bear to a local Milky Way
star.By a loose analogy,if you are on a carousel and see an
intervening object (that also belongs to carousel rotation) between
your position and a position outside rotation,for instance two
bystanders,you recognise that the natural displacement between the
intervening object and the bystanders all due to carousel
rotation.Applying this to simultaneous supernova events is quite a
different matter for the parent galaxies have different positional
displacements to the rotation of the local intervening Milky Way
reference star,the local star has rotated 2 million year since the
supernova was observed and when it actually occured and the same local
star will have rotated 3 million years against the other,so something
must give to keep galactic rotation intact and the individual
positional references of the parent galaxies to this rotation with a
local Milky Way star acting as a reference.

I have no means to reduce this further although you often scramble the
intents and purposes of what I write either wittingly or
unwittingly.You can stay on safe ground and discuss how the doppler
shifts from extragalactic sourses and particularily supernova are
interpreted without using the changing orientation of the sourse to a
local reference star even I would wish that you begin the outlines of
cosmological modelling off the galactic axis rather than 'every point
is the valid center' sort of thing,nothwithstanding for one to thrive
the other must go and the 3rd rotation included into geocentric
observation effectively does this.




snip
I hope I can rely on your comments as though we are men discussing
technical matters rather than the usual opposition to these things and
for the most part I have respect you for dealing with issues others
would not be even capable of considering and perhaps even Mr Markwardt
will go along for a while.

I'm afraid my comments are limited. You only asked
about 'fitting' Doppler shifts of different supernovae
and I guessed this was a vague reference to the Hubble
constant but you don't say that.


Yes,George,I did remark to Mr Sansbury that the Hubble constant is a
symptom of incomplete information that ignores the changing
orientation of galaxies to a local star which conditions the inclusion
of cosmological modelling off the galactic axis,in is really
interesting only when two supernova events occuring in two different
galaxies are observed simultaneously.Our discussion of 'accelerating '
expansion of a year ago directly relates to the changing orientation
for as you are well aware,there is nothing to prohibit the
'acceleration' in accelerating expansion into a cosmological rotation
greater than galactic rotation,you know my arguments for jettisoning
'dark' solutions for geometric interpretation and whether you know it
or not,this was developed with meagrer correspondence and mostly from
you.As nobody can deny galactic rotation,you should be proud to at
least discuss how we would practically observe this rotation by using
the local stars as references to the remaining galaxies,considering
that galactic rotation is not taken into account with present
heliocentric modelling perhaps you should make you astronomer
collaegues aware that present modelling by directly translating
supernova data via doppler shifts is not as simple as it appears or
that they make it appear.


Unless you can be
clearer in what you are asking, my answers will be
similarly vague. I have had to snip a few bits as I
can't see any way in which they relate to the question
so maybe you were asking something else.


How would you know that the local stars are rotating around the
galactic axis from geocentric observations or what amounts to the same
thing,how do you keep galactic rotation intact while maintaining the
observed positions of galaxies to each other from the actual positions
to each other (true cosmological modelling) ?.I am not aswering
anything,I am trying to discuss something.



The simple answer is that the supernova shifts do
fit very nicely and are extremely informative in
determining some cosmological parameters. However,
I still can't see how this is relevant to the
Pioneer telemetry data.

George

The miniscule cyclical 'acceleration' of Pioneer due to its outward
trajectory against the annual orbital rotation of the Earth is a
variation of the same method and insight of Ole Roemer in regard to
how finite light distance is interpreted correctly and a variation on
the same insight and method that appears as 'accelerating'
expansion,the solutions being non local and geometric
simultaneously,check it and you will see.

This is a civil discussion.

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

Gerald, modelling with composite rotations was
the Ptolomaic view. What originated with Copernicus
and was refined by Kepler etc. was modelling from
a heliocentric viewpoint. Copernicus said "The Earth
goes round the Sun." and you would do well to try to
understand that.


You forget just exactly what I am attempting to discuss,how do you
know the local stars are rotating around the galactic axis directly
from geocentric observations ?,you can leave this unanswered if you
wish but the answer is there anyway and much of it eventually turns
into cosmological modelling off the galactic axis.In this respect,you
are faced with a personal challenge,the same as I am faced with
however it is only a matter of how many are prepared to discuss the
matter without hesitation.

You can reduce the Copernican insight to "the Earth goes around the
Sun" but technically this is vulgar and incomplete for the relevant
information is the composite rotations derived from a geocentric
perspective and that is all that counts.When you go to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling and how this is perceived from a geocentric
viewpoint you are met with a procedural obstacle namely sidereal
motion and it is not easy at all to reconfigure the natural interplay
of rotations - the Earth on its axis,the annual elliptical rotation
around the Sun and the rotation of the solar system around the galaxy
to gain access to the relationship the other galaxies bear to our
galaxy and ultimately for the purpose of cosmological modelling to
each other.







The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Thanks for providing the site and I am sure we can go through the
arguments point by point or paragraph by paragraph and sort something
out,

Why don't you just read the page as a whole and see if
you can understand it to start. Breaking it down point
by point or paragraph by paragraph is like trying to
understand how a gearbox works while never looking at
more than one cog at a time. You won't get it.

"More specifically, our rotation period (the time elapsed for one
rotation) with respect to the stars is called a sidereal day. A
sidereal day is 24 sidereal hours, or 23 hours and 56 minutes on a
normal clock. Our clock time is based on the Earth's rotation with
respect to the sun from solar noon to solar noon. This is a solar
day, and it is divided into 24 hours. Because Earth travels about 1 /
365 of the way around the Sun during one day, there is a small
difference between solar time and sidereal time."

Right. Think about that and look at the pictures on the
page.

For the astronomers to correct for the inequality of a day ...

We are not here talking about the inequality of days.
The solar day is 24 hours plus or minus a little bit.
The sidereal day is 23 hours 56 minutes plus or minus
a little bit. We are not talking about the plus or minus
little bits by which they vary, but the gross difference
of roughly four minutes between the two.

snip meanderings


Clocks could not have been developed for determining location with the
principles of sidereal reconfiguration in mind,the only motions
necessary was diurnal rotation against annual elliptical rotation via
the Equation of Time,the precision is always rotation of the Earth in
24 hours through 360 degrees and I can assure you that there was no
"little bit" attached.
Here is a graphic illustration of the Equation of Time,what you are
witnessing is a sine projection of analemmatic motion of the Sun but
this translates into true motion of the annual elliptical motion of
the Earth

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast...e/analemma.htm

I do not know if it ever comes through in my postings but the
admiration for those who developed the intricacies of the system that
generates clocks as calendars as opposed to clocks as rulers for
determining distance and location on the planet is paramount,even
beginning to explain how clocks and its subdivisions are used for dual
purposes would be an enormous and endless task yet if you are intent
in bottling time up in a clock you had better comprehend the evolution
of clocks for astronomical purposes.





It is indeed tiresome to reproduce that excerpt from the Principia
again and again but without proper comprehension that the natural days
are truly unequal against a 24 hour clock there is no means to correct
the erronous reformulation to sidereal motion,

Again you confuse "sidereal" with the variation
of the days. Discard that idea, they are unrelated.


Unless you know what the Equation of Time is via Kepler's second law
there is little chance that you will comprehend why all celestial
observation of motion of the primary planets of the solar system from
a geocentric perspective is conditioned by the composite rotations of
the Earth on its axis and the Earth around the Sun.You set sidereal
motion as the difference between the Sun and the local stars but by
what egocentric magic do you disrupt the natual motion of the Earth
(geocentrically it is observed as the motion of the Sun) and set it
against the local stars when this property belongs to diurnal
rotation.

I can see the 'sidereal' error George,it is an artificial unwitting
one but nonetheless it becomes an error when you attempt to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling.It is difficult enough to draw attension to it
let alone having to contend with the reconfiguration to sidereal
motion at the expense of the Equation of Time,it is a lousy
complicated deal but there you have it.



Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.

Technically the insight of Copernicus was to introduce composite
rotations into observation

No technically, that was the contribution of Ptolemy's
time. Copernicus removed the need for composite rotations
by switching from your geocentric view to a heliocentric
understanding.


Now you are back at the true intents and purposes of Newton's agenda
which is contained in the first line of this paragraph from the
Scholium of the Principia.Of course,I am looking at the actual
composite rotations which appear as one rotation (again,with the
exception of the motion of the moon) in terms of circumpolar motion
for diurnal rotation and the variation in that motion from day to day
and season to season due to annual elliptical rotation or Kepler's
second law as computed by the Equation of Time,not because of
convenience but because it is purely natural motion even if it is
apparent motion from a geocentric perspective.

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion."


where the principle axis is shifted from
the Earth to the Sun,the vulgar only conceive this as the Earth
rotates around the Sun as though we were detached from the physical
consequences but then you have to look at the changing orientation of
the local stars to the remaining galaxies due to stellar rotation
about the distant axis which requires the transition from the
heliocentric to the galactic centric,as yet you have'nt commented on
this as you adhere to concepts which prohibit the natural progression
from one axis to another.

You have a short memory. I long ago pointed this out to
you. I suppose it should be gratifying to see you repeat
it here but since you seem to just parrot the words without
understanding, I take no pleasure in your comments.


Oh be my guest,I am eager to expand on the dissolution of this odd
'every valid point is the center of the cosmos' sort of thing.The
conversation of the 'Universe Older Than Expected' thread took place
over a year ago,to accomplish cosmological modelling off the galactic
axis, sidereal motion has to go along with every scrap of the concept
of 'warped space' or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean to
allow stellar rotation around the galactic axis to serve its true
purpose.Then you have to explain those entities which are
provisionally called 'black holes' and 'big bang' in line with
cosmological structure and motion and the true relationship galaxies
bear to rotation of our galaxy and ultimately to each other.Then you
have to account for galactic structure and formation with all this,it
is recognisable for me as a 4th rotation or a rotation greater than
galactic rotation via the translation of 'accelerating' expansion into
Universal rotation.

...Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time .. however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars. ...

You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.

But you already know that the days are naturally unequal due to
kepler's second law ...

Of course, but we have not yet dealt with the one extra
rotation so we are not in a position to move on to
discussion of more advanced topics like the variation of
days.


Well it all becomes bluff for your fellow colleagues whether in this
forum or out of it.The pure geometry of clocks rely on diurnal
rotation against elliptical rotation,it is simple enough to recognise
the two rotations which constitute the motion of the Earth and why the
Equation of Time only refers to the difference between these two
motions,for me,for you,Newton,the astronomers in his era and for
everyone else.If men are intellectually lazy and do not distinguish
between the complimentary use of clocks for calendrical purposes and
clocks which are permanently fixed to coordinate of the planet,the
more advanced topics of cosmological modelling off the galactic axis
ands the proper use of doppler shifts will remain dormant for all
except those who can understand the implications of the introduction
of a 3rd rotation.


All celestial observation with the exception of the moon is
NATURALLY dictated by the interplay of composite rotations,for
heliocentric modelling it is 2 rotations,for wider cosmological
modelling it is 3 rotations,if you are willing to adhere to sidereal
motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' you are welcome to it George
but it certainly is'nt astronomy.

You mistakenly think I believe something the I don't
because you misunderstand the meaning of these terms.


The simple question remains,how do you know the local stars are
rotating around the galactic axis from a geocentric standpoint
?.Answer it and you will find that I am trading in complexities here
in terms of supernovae data and doppler shifts even if you presently
do me a disservice,you should be aware that you are not dealing with
an aetherist and their simpleminded notions.


That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You share something with the aetherist here which makes it a level
playing field for the joker in the pack is not 'time' but the true
motion of the local stars defined in terms of sidereal
motion.

No Gerald, you are using the technical terms incorrectly.
The true motion of the stars against the hypothetical
non-rotating frame we call "the fixed stars" is called
their "proper motion" while the sidereal day is the
time for one rotation of the Earth against that same
non-rotating frame.


The technical reconfiguration to the sidereal day does not concern
me,what concerns me is the recovery of the relationship between
diurnal rotation against annual elliptical but only as a stepping
stone to cosmological modelling to a 3rd rotation,it is obvious that
the modelling no longer requires the Equation of Time for this
difference is insignificant in respect to the scale and motion of the
galaxies against the local Milky Way stars.I would not taunt you that
the orientation of one galaxy would be different for another if two
supernova were observed simultaneously against the degree of rotation
of a local reference star even though this is not presently taken into
account with cosmological modelling,the degree of complexities it
introduces may be just to great to bear and perhaps you better return
to the softer glow of incomplete interpretation of supernova dat
without taking local rotational reference into account and I certainly
would'nt blame you.



Again,nobody will fault you for discussing the changing
orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies for few would
be capable of actually recognising the implications for cosmological
modelling even though the changing orientation is undeniable yet
remains dormant in all contemporary physics.

No it is fundamental, but so widely accepted and all
pervading you seem to be unaware of it. The frame that
is called "the fixed stars" is technically called The
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

For precisely the reason you give, it is based on the
locations of 608 _extragalactic_ radio sources. What
seems to have passed you by is that "the fixed stars"
refers exclusively to objects far outside the Milky Way.



George,the difficulty is matching the position of galaxies as they are
defined by supernova markers observed simultaneously with the position
they held when they actually occured,in other words it cannot be
anything other than dynamic cosmological modelling,the reference you
present says nothing except that extragalactic distances are radially
removed from our perspective as those who deal with cosmological
expansion only determine that galaxies are further apart than they
were previously and have nothing to say about the changing orientation
to a local reference star.Have you any idea of the difficulty involved
even if you may downplay just what I am attempting to present ?.

Even I would not wish that you look at following mess George,it truly
is spectacular even for those who support the politics of
justification of the century old concept,besides I am more interested
in your idea of the changing orientation of the remaining galaxies to
the true motion of the local stars ...

You have it the wrong way round, modern astronomy
measures the movement of the local stars against
a hypothetical non-rotating frame best approximated
by objects far outside our galaxy.


I am satisfied that you snipped that passage from the author of
spacetime from this post,he simply made up astronomy as he went along
and stuck you with 'fixed stars' models directly derived from
geocentric observations,somehow I find it difficult to believe that
you would live the rest of your life with such nonsense but men
always have a choice to correct things and especially at their own
cost and with little regard to favorable and unfavorable comment.It is
simply a matter of admiration for the astronomers who refined
observations made by others over millenia, somehow the relativistic
revolution may have looked great at the time but when the scale of the
cosmos in terms of galaxies became known in 1923 along with galactic
rotation,the infatuation with the novel concept should have ceased.


However, until you truly grasp Copernicus, and hence
the definition of the sidereal day, all these more
advanced concepts are bound to confuse you. Stick with
that basic point to start with.

George

Suit yourself,the weight of history dictates that clocks can be used
as rulers along with the Equation of Time which subsequently does not
use stars as a reference,however simple this may seem it provides the
basis for the transition to a 3rd axis the recognises the true motion
of the local stars as opposed to the apparent geocentric motion,what
you transfered to the stars should be attributed to the the rotation
of the Earth which again,is always 24 hours per 360 degrees of
rotation.This is what makes clocks good rulers by themselves,anything
else is stacking the deck.

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

Gerald, modelling with composite rotations was
the Ptolomaic view. What originated with Copernicus
and was refined by Kepler etc. was modelling from
a heliocentric viewpoint. Copernicus said "The Earth
goes round the Sun." and you would do well to try to
understand that.


You forget just exactly what I am attempting to discuss,how do you
know the local stars are rotating around the galactic axis directly
from geocentric observations ?,

Well if you had made it clear that was what you were
asking, my reply would have been different. As I said,
you asked about the Doppler shift of supernovae from
other galaxies so I guessed you were asking about the
Hubble Law, not internal rotation of our galaxy.

you can leave this unanswered ...

I will do that at least until we have delat with the
current difficulty that your question has highlighted.

You can reduce the Copernican insight to "the Earth goes around the
Sun" but technically this is vulgar and incomplete for the relevant
information is the composite rotations derived from a geocentric
perspective and that is all that counts.

You have it completely backwards. "The Earth goes around
the Sun" is a complete and accurate, if minimal statement
of the Copernican view, and it replaced and made obsolete
the "composite rotations derived from a geocentric
perspective" of Ptolemy.

When you go to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling and how this is perceived from a geocentric
viewpoint you are met with a procedural obstacle

If you want to work with a geocentric view, you are
welcome, but don't blame anyone else for the problems
it introduces.

namely sidereal motion
and it is not easy at all to reconfigure the natural interplay
of rotations - the Earth on its axis,the annual elliptical rotation
around the Sun and the rotation of the solar system around the galaxy
to gain access to the relationship the other galaxies bear to our
galaxy and ultimately for the purpose of cosmological modelling to
each other.

Exactly, that is why Copernicus abandoned such an
approach and it is now nothing but a historical
footnote.

The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Thanks for providing the site and I am sure we can go through the
arguments point by point or paragraph by paragraph and sort something
out,

Why don't you just read the page as a whole and see if
you can understand it to start. Breaking it down point
by point or paragraph by paragraph is like trying to
understand how a gearbox works while never looking at
more than one cog at a time. You won't get it.

"More specifically, our rotation period (the time elapsed for one
rotation) with respect to the stars is called a sidereal day. A
sidereal day is 24 sidereal hours, or 23 hours and 56 minutes on a
normal clock. Our clock time is based on the Earth's rotation with
respect to the sun from solar noon to solar noon. This is a solar
day, and it is divided into 24 hours. Because Earth travels about 1 /
365 of the way around the Sun during one day, there is a small
difference between solar time and sidereal time."

Right. Think about that and look at the pictures on the
page.

For the astronomers to correct for the inequality of a day ...

We are not here talking about the inequality of days.
The solar day is 24 hours plus or minus a little bit.
The sidereal day is 23 hours 56 minutes plus or minus
a little bit. We are not talking about the plus or minus
little bits by which they vary, but the gross difference
of roughly four minutes between the two.

snip meanderings


Clocks could not have been developed for determining location with the
principles of sidereal reconfiguration in mind,the only motions
necessary was diurnal rotation against annual elliptical rotation via
the Equation of Time,

Yes, because clocks are concerned with events on the
Earth while astronomy is generally concerned with
objects that are not attached to our planet.

the precision is always rotation of the Earth in
24 hours through 360 degrees

Try reading it again but this time try to learn
something from it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

and I can assure you that there was no
"little bit" attached.
Here is a graphic illustration of the Equation of Time,what you are
witnessing is a sine projection of analemmatic motion of the Sun but
this translates into true motion of the annual elliptical motion of
the Earth

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast...e/analemma.htm

Nice diagram, thanks. However it does not address the subject
we were discussing as I already said:

Again you confuse "sidereal" with the variation
of the days. Discard that idea, they are unrelated.


Unless you know what the Equation of Time is via Kepler's second law
there is little chance that you will comprehend why all celestial
observation of motion of the primary planets of the solar system from
a geocentric perspective is conditioned by the composite rotations of
the Earth on its axis and the Earth around the Sun.You set sidereal
motion as the difference between the Sun and the local stars but by
what egocentric magic do you disrupt the natual motion of the Earth
(geocentrically it is observed as the motion of the Sun) and set it
against the local stars when this property belongs to diurnal
rotation.

I can see the 'sidereal' error George,

No, you don't Gerald, you keep confusing it with the variation
introduced by the elliptical orbit and the tilt of the Earth's
axis. The page you cited says:

"This variation of the true sun relative to the mean sun is
the result of two factors: the 23 1/2 tilt of the Earth's
axis relative to its orbit around the sun (the ecliptic)
and the variation in the rate at which the Earth orbits the
sun due to Kepler's Law of Areas for an elliptical orbit."

I am talking about a third factor of which you seem to
be completely unaware.

it is an artificial unwitting
one but nonetheless it becomes an error when you attempt to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling.It is difficult enough to draw attension to it
let alone having to contend with the reconfiguration to sidereal
motion at the expense of the Equation of Time,it is a lousy
complicated deal but there you have it.

You will be able to explain your point of view better if
you first find out why the sidereal day differs from the
solar day.

Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.

Technically the insight of Copernicus was to introduce composite
rotations into observation

No technically, that was the contribution of Ptolemy's
time. Copernicus removed the need for composite rotations
by switching from your geocentric view to a heliocentric
understanding.


Now you are back at the true intents and purposes of Newton's agenda
which is contained in the first line of this paragraph from the
Scholium of the Principia.Of course,I am looking at the actual
composite rotations

Then you are regressing back past both Newton and Copernicus
to the days of Ptolemy.

You have a short memory. I long ago pointed this out to
you. I suppose it should be gratifying to see you repeat
it here but since you seem to just parrot the words without
understanding, I take no pleasure in your comments.


Oh be my guest,I am eager to expand on the dissolution of this odd
'every valid point is the center of the cosmos' sort of thing.

It is far simpler than you think but is unrelated
to rotation. You have mis-associated certain terms
with effects and until you are prepared to question
your understanding, it is almost impossible to
maintain a conversation.

...Today,there is nobody
You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.

But you already know that the days are naturally unequal due to
kepler's second law ...

Your point regarding Kepler is quite correct, but there
is more you are missing.

Of course, but we have not yet dealt with the one extra
rotation so we are not in a position to move on to
discussion of more advanced topics like the variation of
days.

Well it all becomes bluff for your fellow colleagues whether in this
forum or out of it.The pure geometry of clocks rely on diurnal
rotation against elliptical rotation,it is simple enough to recognise
the two rotations which constitute the motion of the Earth ...

Simple enough yes, but it is not the whole story. Still
all you do is talk without reading. The previous paragraphs
explain what you are missing but if your arrogance prevents
you from considering there is something that others can see
that you cannot, then there is little I can do to get you
to look again.


All celestial observation with the exception of the moon is
NATURALLY dictated by the interplay of composite rotations,for
heliocentric modelling it is 2 rotations,for wider cosmological
modelling it is 3 rotations,if you are willing to adhere to sidereal
motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' you are welcome to it George
but it certainly is'nt astronomy.

You mistakenly think I believe something the I don't
because you misunderstand the meaning of these terms.


The simple question remains,how do you know the local stars are
rotating around the galactic axis from a geocentric standpoint
?.Answer it and you will find that I am trading in complexities here
in terms of supernovae data and doppler shifts even if you presently
do me a disservice,you should be aware that you are not dealing with
an aetherist and their simpleminded notions.

I know, I'm dealing with a Ptolemist! I never thought
I would meet one but Usenet is full of surprises.

That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You share something with the aetherist here which makes it a level
playing field for the joker in the pack is not 'time' but the true
motion of the local stars defined in terms of sidereal
motion.

No Gerald, you are using the technical terms incorrectly.
The true motion of the stars against the hypothetical
non-rotating frame we call "the fixed stars" is called
their "proper motion" while the sidereal day is the
time for one rotation of the Earth against that same
non-rotating frame.


The technical reconfiguration to the sidereal day does not concern
me,

Exactly, and because you discard that fundamental
aspect your understanding of our conversations is
damaged. I talk of things from a galactic viewpoint
while you are still using the geocentric viewpoint.

...perhaps you better return
to the softer glow of incomplete interpretation of supernova dat
without taking local rotational reference into account and I certainly
would'nt blame you.

Before considering galactic rotation, you have to account
for the Earth's rotation. You have yet to include that.

Again,nobody will fault you for discussing the changing
orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies for few would
be capable of actually recognising the implications for cosmological
modelling even though the changing orientation is undeniable yet
remains dormant in all contemporary physics.

No it is fundamental, but so widely accepted and all
pervading you seem to be unaware of it. The frame that
is called "the fixed stars" is technically called The
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

For precisely the reason you give, it is based on the
locations of 608 _extragalactic_ radio sources. What
seems to have passed you by is that "the fixed stars"
refers exclusively to objects far outside the Milky Way.

George,the difficulty is matching the position of galaxies as they are
defined by supernova markers observed simultaneously with the position
they held when they actually occured,in other words it cannot be
anything other than dynamic cosmological modelling,the reference you
present says nothing except that extragalactic distances are radially
removed from our perspective as those who deal with cosmological
expansion only determine that galaxies are further apart than they
were previously and have nothing to say about the changing orientation
to a local reference star.Have you any idea of the difficulty involved
even if you may downplay just what I am attempting to present ?.

I have a very clear idea but the difficulty arises
because in effect you assume the line bwetween the
Earth and the Sun to be non-rotating and the distant
galaxies to be wheeling around us once per year to
make up for that error. Ignoring that difference
between sidereal and solar must make it immensely
difficult and complex for you.

You have it the wrong way round, modern astronomy
measures the movement of the local stars against
a hypothetical non-rotating frame best approximated
by objects far outside our galaxy.


I am satisfied that you snipped that passage from the author of
spacetime from this post,he simply made up astronomy as he went along
and stuck you with 'fixed stars' models directly derived from
geocentric observations,somehow I find it difficult to believe that
you would live the rest of your life with such nonsense

The fact that you find it difficult to believe should
be your clue that perhaps your understanding is flawed.
The "fixed stars" is a phrase that technically translates
these days to the ICRF based on extra-galactic sources,
not local stars.

but men
always have a choice to correct things and especially at their own
cost and with little regard to favorable and unfavorable comment.It is
simply a matter of admiration for the astronomers who refined
observations made by others over millenia, somehow the relativistic
revolution may have looked great at the time but when the scale of the
cosmos in terms of galaxies became known in 1923 along with galactic
rotation,the infatuation with the novel concept should have ceased.

It is a shame you cannot face finding out what those
astronomers knew and insist on discarding Copernicus,
Newton and everyone who has come since. The Earth goes
round the Sun Gerald and until you grasp what that means
in terms of the one extra rotation of the Earth needed
each year, you will be faced with ascribing that
rotation to the distant galaxies instead.

However, until you truly grasp Copernicus, and hence
the definition of the sidereal day, all these more
advanced concepts are bound to confuse you. Stick with
that basic point to start with.

Suit yourself,the weight of history dictates that clocks can be used
as rulers along with the Equation of Time which subsequently does not
use stars as a reference,however simple this may seem it provides the
basis for the transition to a 3rd axis the recognises the true motion
of the local stars as opposed to the apparent geocentric motion,what
you transfered to the stars should be attributed to the the rotation
of the Earth which again,is always 24 hours per 360 degrees of
rotation.This is what makes clocks good rulers by themselves,anything
else is stacking the deck.

Gerald, try to understand what is on this page
so that we can at least talk about it. You are
missing a simple but essential point and it
makes any other discussions fruitless. You have
to get the foundations right first.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

George

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message om...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

Gerald, modelling with composite rotations was
the Ptolomaic view. What originated with Copernicus
and was refined by Kepler etc. was modelling from
a heliocentric viewpoint. Copernicus said "The Earth
goes round the Sun." and you would do well to try to
understand that.


You forget just exactly what I am attempting to discuss,how do you
know the local stars are rotating around the galactic axis directly
from geocentric observations ?,

Well if you had made it clear that was what you were
asking, my reply would have been different. As I said,
you asked about the Doppler shift of supernovae from
other galaxies so I guessed you were asking about the
Hubble Law, not internal rotation of our galaxy.


Clearly your are not accustomed to dealing in straightforward
observations,empirical politics is often mistaken for scientific
investigation and it happens that I have no interest in politics no
matter how appealing it has been for 100 years or so,now back to
business.

A galaxy has no meaning without stars,the point being that stellar
rotation around the galactic axis is a more precise definition of a
galaxy,so the question remains,how would you know that the local stars
were rotating around a remote axis.Because I am not asking anything
but telling you how it is done there is no longer any need to couch it
in terms of a qestion that needs answering,at least on my part.





you can leave this unanswered ...

I will do that at least until we have delat with the
current difficulty that your question has highlighted.


My question is designed for further discussion on cosmological
modelling off the galactic axis or what amounts to the same thing;the
changing orientation of the remaining galaxies to a local reference
star and especially in terms of supernovase observed simultaneously,if
at this stage I am required to explain that these supernova originate
in different galaxies,the degree of rotation of the reference star
ect,I can only assume you are interested only in this political
spacetime rubbish which does nothing and goes nowhere.Perhaps only the
aetherists care at this stage.



You can reduce the Copernican insight to "the Earth goes around the
Sun" but technically this is vulgar and incomplete for the relevant
information is the composite rotations derived from a geocentric
perspective and that is all that counts.

You have it completely backwards. "The Earth goes around
the Sun" is a complete and accurate, if minimal statement
of the Copernican view, and it replaced and made obsolete
the "composite rotations derived from a geocentric
perspective" of Ptolemy.


You have some sort of relativistic mental block and frankly that I
have to explain all this stuff again may now only be instructive for
others but you yourself may only be tinkering around as usual wasting
your life away for the spacetime idiot.

Q; How do you know the Earth is rotating from a geocentric perspective
?

The true astronomical answer; circumpolar motion of all natural
celestial objects with the exception of the moon.


Q; How do you know the Earth is rotating around the Sun in an
elliptical orbit?.

True astronomical answer; the variation in circumpolar motion of
natural celestial objects or the natural days vary due to Kepler's
second law.


Q; How do you know that the local stars are rotating around the
galactic axis

New astronomical answer; the changing orientation of galaxies to local
reference stars due to axial rotation of these stars.






When you go to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling and how this is perceived from a geocentric
viewpoint you are met with a procedural obstacle

If you want to work with a geocentric view, you are
welcome, but don't blame anyone else for the problems
it introduces.


No,the geocentric view is valid up to a point which is the whole point
of translating apparent motions into true motions,in every case I have
supplied the actual historical details of how astronomers in Newton's
era corrected their observations for heliocentric modelling,they
factored in the variation of a day due to annual elliptical motion and
conveniently reduced it to circular motion thereby conditioning it to
the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 degrees without
reference to anything external such as the stars.Without the Equation
of Time or in Newtonian terms the distinction between absolute time
and relative time which after all is only a geometrical/astronomical
alignment,it would be infinitely more difficult to accomplish
heliocentric modelling.





namely sidereal motion
and it is not easy at all to reconfigure the natural interplay
of rotations - the Earth on its axis,the annual elliptical rotation
around the Sun and the rotation of the solar system around the galaxy
to gain access to the relationship the other galaxies bear to our
galaxy and ultimately for the purpose of cosmological modelling to
each other.

Exactly, that is why Copernicus abandoned such an
approach and it is now nothing but a historical
footnote.


Again,this I attribute to a relativistic mental block or the defense
mechanism that just about scrambles every astronomical observation
known.What do you wish,that I should insult you and actually reduce
this further when I thought it was not possible ?

Look at the sky.

How many known rotations do you partake in,the answer so far is 3.

Do you experience these rotations directly,the answer is no,you infer
them from external observation or in other words you look up at the
sky,day or night,it does'nt matter.

How do you know the Earth is rotating,the answer is circumpolar
motion,although it appears that the Sun and the stars are moving
around the Earth ,it is just the Earth rotating.

How do you know the Earth is rotating around the Sun in an elliptical
orbit,the answer is that there is a variation in circumpolar motion
from day to day and season to season against the Equinoxes and
solstices.

What is the geometrical relationship between the Earth's rotation on
its axis and the Earth's rotation due to elliptical motion,the answer
is the Equation of Time.

What did Newton call this difference,the answer is Newton called this
difference absolute time and relative time.

How did scientists screw up a century agao,the answer is unknown
except in terms of utter stupidity,negligence and incompetence.

And,lastly,why for goodness sake have I to remind you lot and I mean
all of you, of history,astronomy,geometry and multiple other
disciplines while you downplay straightforward observations of
positional displacements of other galaxies to our own.







The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Thanks for providing the site and I am sure we can go through the
arguments point by point or paragraph by paragraph and sort something
out,

Why don't you just read the page as a whole and see if
you can understand it to start. Breaking it down point
by point or paragraph by paragraph is like trying to
understand how a gearbox works while never looking at
more than one cog at a time. You won't get it.

"More specifically, our rotation period (the time elapsed for one
rotation) with respect to the stars is called a sidereal day. A
sidereal day is 24 sidereal hours, or 23 hours and 56 minutes on a
normal clock. Our clock time is based on the Earth's rotation with
respect to the sun from solar noon to solar noon. This is a solar
day, and it is divided into 24 hours. Because Earth travels about 1 /
365 of the way around the Sun during one day, there is a small
difference between solar time and sidereal time."

Right. Think about that and look at the pictures on the
page.

For the astronomers to correct for the inequality of a day ...

We are not here talking about the inequality of days.
The solar day is 24 hours plus or minus a little bit.
The sidereal day is 23 hours 56 minutes plus or minus
a little bit. We are not talking about the plus or minus
little bits by which they vary, but the gross difference
of roughly four minutes between the two.

snip meanderings


Clocks could not have been developed for determining location with the
principles of sidereal reconfiguration in mind,the only motions
necessary was diurnal rotation against annual elliptical rotation via
the Equation of Time,

Yes, because clocks are concerned with events on the
Earth while astronomy is generally concerned with
objects that are not attached to our planet.


I do see how Roemer used a clock to determine the positional
displacement of Io and attributed the anomaly to the variation in the
orbit between Earth and Jupiter,it begins with geometry and ends with
it.I see the astronomers,navigators and inventors work together to
generate the use of clocks as rulers for saving lives,enriching
humanity with the complimentary use of accurate clocks,again it begins
and ends in geometry and I see you and your colleagues destroy the
heritage of all that sorting and sifting so you can create a cartoon
Universe,like all destroyers who know no remorse,too ignorant to know
what was destroyed,unless you don't know,one word -GEOMETRY.


the precision is always rotation of the Earth in
24 hours through 360 degrees

Try reading it again but this time try to learn
something from it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

and I can assure you that there was no
"little bit" attached.
Here is a graphic illustration of the Equation of Time,what you are
witnessing is a sine projection of analemmatic motion of the Sun but
this translates into true motion of the annual elliptical motion of
the Earth

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast...e/analemma.htm

Nice diagram, thanks. However it does not address the subject
we were discussing as I already said:

Again you confuse "sidereal" with the variation
of the days. Discard that idea, they are unrelated.


Unless you know what the Equation of Time is via Kepler's second law
there is little chance that you will comprehend why all celestial
observation of motion of the primary planets of the solar system from
a geocentric perspective is conditioned by the composite rotations of
the Earth on its axis and the Earth around the Sun.You set sidereal
motion as the difference between the Sun and the local stars but by
what egocentric magic do you disrupt the natual motion of the Earth
(geocentrically it is observed as the motion of the Sun) and set it
against the local stars when this property belongs to diurnal
rotation.

I can see the 'sidereal' error George,

No, you don't Gerald, you keep confusing it with the variation
introduced by the elliptical orbit and the tilt of the Earth's
axis. The page you cited says:


The variation follows the Equation of Time which is solely derived
from the Earth's rotation on its axis and the Earth's rotation around
the Sun,whetehr you believe I am confused or not,the only major
influences in what we observe are those two rotations,this is why
clocks were developed in tandem with the Equation of Time or the
difference between absolute time and relative time.To impose another
meaning on Newton's definitions is either false or an outright
lie,some lie and most simply do not know.



The Equation of Time is conditioned by the motion of the Earth which
appears to us as the motion of the Sun



"This variation of the true sun relative to the mean sun is
the result of two factors: the 23 1/2 tilt of the Earth's
axis relative to its orbit around the sun (the ecliptic)
and the variation in the rate at which the Earth orbits the
sun due to Kepler's Law of Areas for an elliptical orbit."


In some ways I do have some sympathy for you when you talk about 'mean
sun' and 'true sun',what can I make of people who can't talk to me in
terms of the two rotations of the Earth and how we discern these
rotations astronomically from our position on Earth.So all of you,both
aetherist and relativist,base your clocks on the Sun's motion rather
than the Earth's motion which is 24 hours through 360 degrees but then
you have to re-acquaint yourselves with how clocks were used against
elliptical rotation so they act as rulers,it may be fine to talk about
"mean sun and true sun" but for determining position and distance on
the planet using clocks requires the variation introduced by the 2nd
rotation or annual elliptical rotation,for all astronomers this is
attributed to the motion of the Earth although it is sensibly
perceived as the motion of the Sun.

Sorry George,the minds which developed the principles of clocks as
rulers are a different breed to the apologists today who think they
accomplished some victory or improvement over true ability by some
rearrangement of words like absolute/relative.The heritage which I am
presenting you seem to hate or not comprehend, for all that I have
written is correct both the original astronomical material and the new
material which originated from my own investigations.





I am talking about a third factor of which you seem to
be completely unaware.

it is an artificial unwitting
one but nonetheless it becomes an error when you attempt to introduce
stellar rotation around the galactic axis for the purpose of wider
cosmological modelling.It is difficult enough to draw attension to it
let alone having to contend with the reconfiguration to sidereal
motion at the expense of the Equation of Time,it is a lousy
complicated deal but there you have it.

You will be able to explain your point of view better if
you first find out why the sidereal day differs from the
solar day.


You become a relativistic freak by not recognising how Newton
distinguished between the absolute time and relative time via the
Equation of Time which refers to the difference between diurnal
rotation and annual elliptical rotation with the sun as a geocentric
marker.Go ahead and stick with the motion of the 'fixed stars' and
models derived from it so every idiot will go along with "every valid
point is the center",I guess you deserve each other even if your
common minds are ten a penny.



Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.

Technically the insight of Copernicus was to introduce composite
rotations into observation

No technically, that was the contribution of Ptolemy's
time. Copernicus removed the need for composite rotations
by switching from your geocentric view to a heliocentric
understanding.


Now you are back at the true intents and purposes of Newton's agenda
which is contained in the first line of this paragraph from the
Scholium of the Principia.Of course,I am looking at the actual
composite rotations

Then you are regressing back past both Newton and Copernicus
to the days of Ptolemy.


The next time you snip that excerpt which tells you that Newton's
agenda was a variation on the agenda of the astronomers in his era in
terms of distinguishing true motion from apparent you are snipping
that I too am introducing cosmological modelling off the galactic axis
for the purpose of determining true structure and motion from apparent
but on a wider cosmological scale.The next time you hear your
colleagues talk of 'every valid center' or the Universe is a loaf of
rising bread it would do well to remember that you are in a position
to tackle real issues nothwithstanding that I do not care who does it
as long as it gets done (this saves you coming back in a year and
assimilating the topic under discussion here as your own viewpoint).



You have a short memory. I long ago pointed this out to
you. I suppose it should be gratifying to see you repeat
it here but since you seem to just parrot the words without
understanding, I take no pleasure in your comments.


Oh be my guest,I am eager to expand on the dissolution of this odd
'every valid point is the center of the cosmos' sort of thing.

It is far simpler than you think but is unrelated
to rotation. You have mis-associated certain terms
with effects and until you are prepared to question
your understanding, it is almost impossible to
maintain a conversation.


Hey,George,if you recognise how you know the local stars are rotating
around a remote axis,say goodbye to relativity and its exotic
offshoots such as the no boundary rubbish.Complain to these guys that
you look like utter fools but it won't be me,I am only making you
aware that your use of doppler shifts for wider cosmological modelling
are all over the place to the point of being useless.


...Today,there is nobody
You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.

But you already know that the days are naturally unequal due to
kepler's second law ...

Your point regarding Kepler is quite correct, but there
is more you are missing.


I am missing nothing,the only two influences are rotation of the Earth
on its axis against the rotation of the Earth around the Sun,this is
what makes the days unequal against the Earths daily rotation.If you
do not come to recognise why clocks were in competition with the lunar
and other astronomical methods for the longitude prize you will hardly
recognise why Newton was essentially correct in defining absolute
time and relative time as a reflection of commonplace astronomical
understanding.

You literally have to be a numskull not to recognise the relationship
between our actual rotations,how we perceive them as one combined
rotation from our geocentric view and how we seperate them via the
Equation of Time.If you want to remain with mean sun and true sun,you
are welcome to it.


Of course, but we have not yet dealt with the one extra
rotation so we are not in a position to move on to
discussion of more advanced topics like the variation of
days.

Well it all becomes bluff for your fellow colleagues whether in this
forum or out of it.The pure geometry of clocks rely on diurnal
rotation against elliptical rotation,it is simple enough to recognise
the two rotations which constitute the motion of the Earth ...

Simple enough yes, but it is not the whole story. Still
all you do is talk without reading. The previous paragraphs
explain what you are missing but if your arrogance prevents
you from considering there is something that others can see
that you cannot, then there is little I can do to get you
to look again.


You reformulated what a clock is in terms of celestial motion and
managed to make the motion of the local stars a constant,there is
something badly wrong with this as the natural days are truly unequal
and follows the Equation of Time from our geocentric perspective we
have no choice but to consider what rotations influence all natural
celestial motion whether apparent motion or true motion.With sidereal
motion you basically lock the local stars into an egocentric view with
no hope of ever shifting to the important galactic axis for the
purpose of wider cosmological modelling,the only means to shift the
axis to heliocentric modelling was to recognise that the variation in
circumpolar motion follows Kepler's second law,if you can say
otherwise I will doubt your sanity and this thread is finished for
natural astronomical observation can descend no further.





All celestial observation with the exception of the moon is
NATURALLY dictated by the interplay of composite rotations,for
heliocentric modelling it is 2 rotations,for wider cosmological
modelling it is 3 rotations,if you are willing to adhere to sidereal
motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' you are welcome to it George
but it certainly is'nt astronomy.

You mistakenly think I believe something the I don't
because you misunderstand the meaning of these terms.


The simple question remains,how do you know the local stars are
rotating around the galactic axis from a geocentric standpoint
?.Answer it and you will find that I am trading in complexities here
in terms of supernovae data and doppler shifts even if you presently
do me a disservice,you should be aware that you are not dealing with
an aetherist and their simpleminded notions.

I know, I'm dealing with a Ptolemist! I never thought
I would meet one but Usenet is full of surprises.


Call me what you will,you have not thought through how clocks act as
rulers via the Equation of Time which reduces rulers measuring one
thing and clocks another to the rubbish bin from which it emerged.Have
a good look at your mentor's astronomical method for isolating the
motion of Mercury,whatever it is ,it is not astronomy and believe me I
would wish that is recognised that there were those who worked to
restore some discipline to this awful relativistic epoch,whetehr the
study of natural phenomena ever recovers I simply do not know.



Albert Einstein Relativity 29. The Solution of the Problem of
Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativity


" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars."



That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You share something with the aetherist here which makes it a level
playing field for the joker in the pack is not 'time' but the true
motion of the local stars defined in terms of sidereal
motion.

No Gerald, you are using the technical terms incorrectly.
The true motion of the stars against the hypothetical
non-rotating frame we call "the fixed stars" is called
their "proper motion" while the sidereal day is the
time for one rotation of the Earth against that same
non-rotating frame.


The technical reconfiguration to the sidereal day does not concern
me,

Exactly, and because you discard that fundamental
aspect your understanding of our conversations is
damaged. I talk of things from a galactic viewpoint
while you are still using the geocentric viewpoint.


I will press you no further but it still remains,how do you know from
a geocentric viewpoint that the local stars are rotating around a
remote axis,the answer is the changing orientation to the remaining
galaxies who themselves change their orientation to each other.Because
the scales that are involved are so great you have to resort
immediately to cosmological modelling using supernovae data but before
you recognise the 3rd rotation,it is implicit how you recognise the
1st and 2nd with none of this warped space nonsense or the properties
of 'space',it begins in geometry and ends in geometry.





...perhaps you better return
to the softer glow of incomplete interpretation of supernova dat
without taking local rotational reference into account and I certainly
would'nt blame you.

Before considering galactic rotation, you have to account
for the Earth's rotation. You have yet to include that.


Gee,George,I have just spent almost a year and a half explaining why
the rotation of the Earth is a constant 24 hours per 360 degrees and
if it slows down it affects its relationship to the Equation of Time
which again is the variation in a day against elliptical rotation but
tommorrrow and as long as the Earth rotates it will always be 24 hours
from the physical location of GMT around to GMT.

I could'nt care less if nobody who looks alive thinks differently,the
principles of the Earth's rotation,its geometry and how they generate
the features of a clock and condition its uses are historically
accurate,relativity is only as good as "clocks measure time",a
miserable and vulgar interpretation of the physical instrument and
taken to the extreme as relativity did ,a total waste of effort that
does nothing and goes nowhere.





Again,nobody will fault you for discussing the changing
orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies for few would
be capable of actually recognising the implications for cosmological
modelling even though the changing orientation is undeniable yet
remains dormant in all contemporary physics.

No it is fundamental, but so widely accepted and all
pervading you seem to be unaware of it. The frame that
is called "the fixed stars" is technically called The
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

For precisely the reason you give, it is based on the
locations of 608 _extragalactic_ radio sources. What
seems to have passed you by is that "the fixed stars"
refers exclusively to objects far outside the Milky Way.

George,the difficulty is matching the position of galaxies as they are
defined by supernova markers observed simultaneously with the position
they held when they actually occured,in other words it cannot be
anything other than dynamic cosmological modelling,the reference you
present says nothing except that extragalactic distances are radially
removed from our perspective as those who deal with cosmological
expansion only determine that galaxies are further apart than they
were previously and have nothing to say about the changing orientation
to a local reference star.Have you any idea of the difficulty involved
even if you may downplay just what I am attempting to present ?.

I have a very clear idea but the difficulty arises
because in effect you assume the line bwetween the
Earth and the Sun to be non-rotating and the distant
galaxies to be wheeling around us once per year to
make up for that error. Ignoring that difference
between sidereal and solar must make it immensely
difficult and complex for you.


Earth axial rotation = circumpolar motion

Earth annual elliptical motion = variation in circumpolar motion via
Equation of Time known as the difference between absolute time and
relative time (see axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours)

Stellar rotational motion around galactic axis = changing orientation
of galaxies to each other via the changing orientation to rotation of
local reference star.

Play politics with the aetherist,the material presented here will
eventually surface one way or another so stop playing me for someone I
am not,SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY THE FRIGGEN PRICE AND I KNOW IT.




You have it the wrong way round, modern astronomy
measures the movement of the local stars against
a hypothetical non-rotating frame best approximated
by objects far outside our galaxy.


I am satisfied that you snipped that passage from the author of
spacetime from this post,he simply made up astronomy as he went along
and stuck you with 'fixed stars' models directly derived from
geocentric observations,somehow I find it difficult to believe that
you would live the rest of your life with such nonsense

The fact that you find it difficult to believe should
be your clue that perhaps your understanding is flawed.
The "fixed stars" is a phrase that technically translates
these days to the ICRF based on extra-galactic sources,
not local stars.


This was written in 1920,the scale of the cosmos in terms of galaxies
became known in 1923,the snake in the grass even foists Kepler's
second law on Newton as a prediction and it goes downhill from there.I
use supernovae data specifically,if you can't work the data into true
rotation of a local star then just leave it until you become
comfortable with it but don't even bother with these useless attempts
at insults,if that is the way you want to spend the rest of your life
I am sure you will be remembered and thanked as relativistic cannon
fodder.




but men
always have a choice to correct things and especially at their own
cost and with little regard to favorable and unfavorable comment.It is
simply a matter of admiration for the astronomers who refined
observations made by others over millenia, somehow the relativistic
revolution may have looked great at the time but when the scale of the
cosmos in terms of galaxies became known in 1923 along with galactic
rotation,the infatuation with the novel concept should have ceased.

It is a shame you cannot face finding out what those
astronomers knew and insist on discarding Copernicus,
Newton and everyone who has come since. The Earth goes
round the Sun Gerald and until you grasp what that means
in terms of the one extra rotation of the Earth needed
each year, you will be faced with ascribing that
rotation to the distant galaxies instead.


The only thing I face is mediocrity,the inference of heliocentricity
was difficult but not the rotation of stellar rotation around the
galactic axis,we infered it indirectly through observing other
galaxies,nobody has thought to question how we perceive it as we
perceived the 1st and 2nd rotation.When you eventually sort out how
you can do it,let me know and then we will discuss how you use
supernovae data against stellar rotation around the galactic
axis.Stick with your no-boundary condition,I'm sure you will be happy
to tell everyone that you are the center of the Universe (once you
recognise the changing orientation of the galaxies to our galactic
rotation it forces you into that notion) but I spent too much time
pointing out the absurdities to which relativity tens and that is just
another one.




However, until you truly grasp Copernicus, and hence
the definition of the sidereal day, all these more
advanced concepts are bound to confuse you. Stick with
that basic point to start with.

Suit yourself,the weight of history dictates that clocks can be used
as rulers along with the Equation of Time which subsequently does not
use stars as a reference,however simple this may seem it provides the
basis for the transition to a 3rd axis the recognises the true motion
of the local stars as opposed to the apparent geocentric motion,what
you transfered to the stars should be attributed to the the rotation
of the Earth which again,is always 24 hours per 360 degrees of
rotation.This is what makes clocks good rulers by themselves,anything
else is stacking the deck.

Gerald, try to understand what is on this page
so that we can at least talk about it. You are
missing a simple but essential point and it
makes any other discussions fruitless. You have
to get the foundations right first.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

George

The foundation for what !!,that you can live like a fool with 'every
point is the valid center of the Universe', the dismal and utterly
stupid conclusion to which relativistic cosmology tends.Good for you
George,perhaps it is your legacy but it certainly will not be mine,I
don't want to look that bad for future generations.

The ex-relativists make the best comments even though few in
number,the reward of snapping out of artificial elitism is worth more
than all the years spent hyping a man who hyped himself and did
nothing else.

(Oriel36) wrote in message om...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message om...
Gerald, try to understand what is on this page
so that we can at least talk about it. You are
missing a simple but essential point and it
makes any other discussions fruitless. You have
to get the foundations right first.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

George

The foundation for what !!

If you'd actually read the page, you'd know what, and you
could have saved a couple of thousand words of typing
blather. He's trying to teach you why there is a solar
and a sidereal day, and it has nothing to do with
relativity. Heck, the physics required was probably
known to the builders of Stonehenge.

- Randy

(Randy Poe) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message om...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message om...
Gerald, try to understand what is on this page
so that we can at least talk about it. You are
missing a simple but essential point and it
makes any other discussions fruitless. You have
to get the foundations right first.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

George

The foundation for what !!

If you'd actually read the page, you'd know what, and you
could have saved a couple of thousand words of typing
blather. He's trying to teach you why there is a solar
and a sidereal day, and it has nothing to do with
relativity. Heck, the physics required was probably
known to the builders of Stonehenge.

- Randy

Good !.

What makes you think,in a world of scientific relativistic politics,
that you and George are being played for a fool,the utter stupidity
and I mean that,that does not recognise clocks as physical rulers of
distance in a specific way via the relationship between the rotation
of the Earth on its axis against the rotation of the Earth around the
Sun never truly understood why Newton framed the distinction between
astronomical absolute and relative time and has even less of a chance
of accomplishing cosmological modelling off the galactic axis.

My only problem in conversing is that there is nobody here is at the
level who can even discuss the relationship between diurnal rotation
against annual elliptical never mind the introduction of the 3rd
rotation,you and George are locked in an astronomical mess of your own
design.

You are children,spoilt children who would not be capable of standing
alongside those who could make accurate astronomical measurements even
1.000 years before stonehenge,you are a crude ,ignorant and
incompetent bunch with nothing to say.

http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/roofbox.htm

"Oriel36" wrote in message m...

Question 1:
Q; How do you know the Earth is rotating from a geocentric perspective
?

The true astronomical answer; circumpolar motion of all natural
celestial objects with the exception of the moon.

Good, I'll give you 9 out of 10 for that.

Answer 1: The true rotation of the Earth create an apparent
circumpolar motion of all celestial objects with the
exception of those within the solar sytem and some of the
nearer stars. The time taken for celestial objects to
complete one apparent circumpolar motion of 360 degrees is
about 23h, 56m.

Practical: Find a vantage point with a clear view of the
western horizon, wait until it is dark then note the time
at which some easily recognisable star (or a distant galaxy
if you have telescope) sets. Repeat this the following day
and find the time between settings. This is the time taken
for the Earth to turn by 360 degrees and is called the
sidereal day.

Question 2a:
Q; How do you know the Earth is rotating around the Sun in an
elliptical orbit?.

Your answer was misplaced. Here is the correct answer:

Answer 2a: The true motion of the Earth around the Sun
creates an apparent circumpolar motion of the Sun. The time
taken for the Sun to complete one apparent circumpolar
motion of 360 degrees is one year. As a result the Sun
appears to move a little less than one degree per day
against the background of distant galaxies due to the true
motion of the Earth.

Note: It takes the Earth on average another four minutes
to rotate the extra one degree to again face the Sun. This
added to the sidereal day gives us the mean solar day of
exactly 24 hours.

Question 2b:
How do we know the orbit of the Earth is not
circular but elliptical? Your answer was ...

Answer 2b:
True astronomical answer; the variation in circumpolar motion of
natural celestial objects or the natural days vary due to Kepler's
second law.

Correct! We know from the Equation of Time which relates
the actual apparent motion of the Sun to the mean apparent
motion, and hence the actual solar day to the mean solar
day.

Question 3:
Q; How do you know that the local stars are rotating around the
galactic axis

New astronomical answer; the changing orientation of galaxies to local
reference stars due to axial rotation of these stars.

[Note: What you describe is known technically as the
'proper motion' of the stars.]

Wrong answer. Here is the correct one:

Answer 3:
While the proper motion can be measured for nearby stars,
for the majority of the galaxy it is too small to be
measured. Instead we assume the stars follow Keplerian
elliptical orbits and infer their motion from the
observed Doppler shift.

And,lastly,why for goodness sake have I to remind you lot and I mean
all of you, of history,astronomy,geometry and multiple other
disciplines while you downplay straightforward observations of
positional displacements of other galaxies to our own.

It is not currently possible to observe the proper motion
of galaxies. You observations are entirely imaginary.

I can see the 'sidereal' error George,

No, you don't Gerald, you keep confusing it with the variation
introduced by the elliptical orbit and the tilt of the Earth's
axis. The page you cited says:


The variation follows the Equation of Time which is solely derived
from the Earth's rotation on its axis and the Earth's rotation around
the Sun,whetehr you believe I am confused or not,the only major
influences in what we observe are those two rotations, ..

I know there are two but you only account fully for one and,
through the Equation of Time, for the _variation_ in the
other

The Equation of Time is conditioned by the motion of the Earth which
appears to us as the motion of the Sun

The Equation of time results from the DIFFERENCE between
circular and elliptical motion. You are seeing that
difference but forgetting the overall motion of the
Earth round the Sun. You have forgotten Copernicus.

I am missing nothing,the only two influences are rotation of the Earth
on its axis against the rotation of the Earth around the Sun,this is
what makes the days unequal against the Earths daily rotation.

Right, but you only include one of those in your descriptions
even though you talk of both.

Before considering galactic rotation, you have to account
for the Earth's rotation. You have yet to include that.


Gee,George,I have just spent almost a year and a half explaining why
the rotation of the Earth is a constant 24 hours per 360 degrees

I know. It's a pity you didn't check the time that the stars
set before making your error so public.


Earth axial rotation = circumpolar motion

Right. Now go and observe it, it takes 23h 56m, the
sidereal day.

Earth annual elliptical motion = variation in circumpolar motion via
Equation of Time

Wrong. Earth's orbital motion = difference between
mean solar day and the sidereal day.

Difference between (mean) circular orbital motion and
(true) elliptical motion = Equation of Time.

Stellar rotational motion around galactic axis = changing orientation
of galaxies to each other via the changing orientation to rotation of
local reference star.

Nope, that is undetectable. Stellar rotational motion
around galactic axis = Doppler shift of 21cm line from
neutral hydrogen clouds.

Gerald, try to understand what is on this page
so that we can at least talk about it. You are
missing a simple but essential point and it
makes any other discussions fruitless. You have
to get the foundations right first.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

The foundation for what !!,

The foundation for discussion of objects beyond the Solar
System must be an accurate picture of the motion of
the Earth around the Sun. As long as you are missing
the insight of Copernicus, you will attribute an apparent
rotation to the galaxies that actually results from the
true orbital motion of the Earth. The Equation of Time
only accounts for part of that motion.

The difference between the time it takes the stars to make
one apparent circumpolar motion and that for the Sun is
about 4 minutes and that is lost in your philosophy. All
you need to do is watch the sky and check your clock when
the Sun sets and when a star sets, and then try to explain
to me why they are different.

The Equation of time covers the variation from day to day
but not that mean difference of 4 minutes. That is what
you are missing.

George